Yesterday, I discussed an interesting informational graphic I cam across in the course of my work.

I read a lot of history.  Unlike some people, I don't focus on military history, but certainly read a fair amount of it. The first rule of any military history book is that there are never enough maps.  Sometimes there are ridiculously few, but even when there are a fair number, they are insufficient.

Partially that's because, no matter what, what you finally have are unit designations moving around on a surface somehow coded for terrain.  I am not an expert in tactic, weaponry, or logistics.  Just looking at those rectangles doesn't tell me much.

I don't even know the range of their weapons (if we're in the modern era).  How far do their arms fire?  What units are in range, which ones are not?

I don't know the effects of terrain.  Can this unit actually see that one, or not?  How long would it take for this unit to move toward the enemy?

I don't know what the various commanders perceived.  What did they think the battlefield looked like?  How adequate were the maps they had?  What did they see?

This may all seem vaguely sissy to real military readers, but, as I said, that's not me.  And this would be impractical for all maps.  That can be expensive, and I doubt the publisher provides a lot of money for that.

Still, it would be fun to see a campaign seen, not only from the empyrean post-game wrap up POV, but also from ground level, so you can follow the decisions as they get made from the information available.